|
Post by aramis on Mar 9, 2010 15:08:06 GMT -5
Part of the problem, Falconer, is that Starship was already a generic term in Sci Fi. So the "redefinition" by the authors of the shows was bound for confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 9, 2010 16:43:28 GMT -5
Can you give me an example?
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Mar 9, 2010 20:21:47 GMT -5
Starship Troopers was published in 1959. Starship, the US title of the 1958 science-fiction novel Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 9, 2010 21:02:08 GMT -5
So is “starship” used generically in those books, or is it the name of a specific type of vessel?
And are you saying I should cease using the term “starship,” here on this TOS board, in a manner consistent with TOS’s usage?
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Mar 9, 2010 23:08:04 GMT -5
I'm saying the use of "Starship" as a specific class was a stupid move on DCF and GR's part, because it was already used as a generic term by Heinlein. Those were just the two cases I could document quickly. The term was used generically by Heinlein for all the ships of the fleet, not as a class name. Heinlein tried to avoid inventing new words (unlike Doc Smith or Niven).
|
|
|
Post by blackbat242 on Mar 10, 2010 0:14:20 GMT -5
I have read a lot of pre-1970 sci-fi (and a lot of that pre-1960), and while spaceship was the most common term, some authors used spaceship for in-system vessels and starship for interstellar vessels.
That is the base I usually think of when I see the terms... but you are right, Falconer, when you remind us that TGBotG used it in a very specific manner... and that we should keep that definition in mind.
So yes, there were only 12 "Starships" (give or take a couple) "in the fleet" at that time... and a decent* number of lesser "warships", "escorts", "police vessels", "exploration ships", and "scientific craft" in Starfleet in addition to the "Starships".
* but nothing like the obscene numbers found in SFTM and the many on-line fan-sites.
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Mar 10, 2010 2:32:57 GMT -5
For the volume to be covered based upon the maps in SFTM, the fleet size is pretty small given the lack of sensor range also indicated therein.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 10, 2010 3:12:38 GMT -5
But in the show, most of the planets and most of the civilizations that Enterprise encounters have been previously encountered by Starfleet only once before, ever, if that. So it’s supposed to be a vast territory that couldn’t ever be “covered” the way police cars cover a city. Anyway, it’s a story, so really to me what you’ve got to look at is what kind of a story is it, so the actual “scale” of space is irrelevant. Space functions in the story like the ocean in terms of seafaring on Earth in our own recent history. Not recent as in the two World Wars, either, but really, IMO, the Age of Sail. Regards.
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Mar 10, 2010 4:16:24 GMT -5
Falconer, I'm just talking the shell, patroling that Klingon and Romulan border. Let alone the interior.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 10, 2010 9:11:48 GMT -5
Well, as I said: In the episodes, those borders, protected by treaty, are not patrolled by ships. Outposts and stations, yes, but when they need the assistance of a ship they radio the nearest Starship. Again, that might not make total sense, but what works for the episodes probably works well for role-playing.
|
|
|
Post by lstyer on Mar 10, 2010 14:10:35 GMT -5
Again, that might not make total sense, but what works for the episodes probably works well for role-playing. Arguably it works even better for role-playing because it justifies the PC group's ship being either the first or only ship to respond to lots of adventure-spawning situations. That said, it really doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by lstyer on Mar 10, 2010 14:16:50 GMT -5
I'm saying the use of "Starship" as a specific class was a stupid move on DCF and GR's part, because it was already used as a generic term by Heinlein. This is one of the few areas where I don't really fall on the "old school" side of the Trek fence. I like the term "starship" so much better as a generic descriptor for ships capable of interstellar flight than as the name of a particular class of ship. Since I'm younger than Trek, I can't really say that's because the generic use came first -- my preference might well be based on exclusively post- Trek use of the term. The term itself even sounds generic to my ears.
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Mar 10, 2010 17:12:50 GMT -5
lstyer: The fanbase rapidly adopted the Constitution Class in lieu of Starship Class... it was default by 1975. For such an obsessive fanbase, that's the single-most "ignore the film" element.
Falconer: The bases (given the speeds listed) seem more likely to be repair/restock centers, more than sensor platforms. Nothing on the film to support them being strong sensor platforms, at least not significantly better than ships. It's all in the interpretation of the viewer.
I can believe the Enterprise is one of 12 hot new cruisers, core of a new generation, in a fleet of several hundred vessels. I can't swallow even a 500LY (let alone 5000Pc) federation with less than 50 ships. After all, the galactic arm is 500LY thick. If those subspace sensors have a 15LY range, the circumference is needing 110 units, and up or down one sensor layer, the sphere needs another 100....
Now, I take TMP as canon (despite the uniforms) and the movies as well, and TAS. So, given these, and the Bonaventure, and the on-screen displays, the SFTM ship classes are canon. (They're on displays in one of the movies.) THey also match the fleet look established with the older cruiser class in TAS. Further Still, TMP uses names straight out of the Tech Manual with the same numbers.
I'd say we need to ignore the SFTM for maps, tho'... the maps shown are both unrealistically big, and don't at all match the on screen map of the Romulan Border.
|
|
|
Post by lstyer on Mar 10, 2010 21:39:06 GMT -5
I can believe the Enterprise is one of 12 hot new cruisers, core of a new generation, in a fleet of several hundred vessels. "New" is a pretty relative term there, then, because it's established in "The Menagerie" that Spock was serving on the Enterprise a decade before that episode.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 10, 2010 21:51:05 GMT -5
Arguably it works even better for role-playing because it justifies the PC group's ship being either the first or only ship to respond to lots of adventure-spawning situations. lstyer: Exactly! Aramis: Well, I certainly have no problem with the term Constitution-class. Heavy Cruiser is a little mundane for my tastes, but it’s fine especially when juxtaposing with other SFTM ship classes, as well as the OSFB Light Cruiser. You’ll forgive me, and understand what I mean, if I continue to use the term “Starship” from time to time. You don’t have to use it, but it’s helpful for me to realize what it means in TOS, because otherwise a lot of things in the TOS scripts wouldn’t make very good sense. Fair enough? On a side note: I am thinking the word “canon” is not a very helpful term. The very premise of this board is that anything up to—and NOT including—TMP is fair game for discussion. Spare references to the movies and TNG, etc., won’t hurt. I guess what I’m trying to say is that as far as I am concerned, SFTM is a great resource that can stand up for itself around here. (If anything, movie references to it only hurt its old school cred!) I wouldn’t canonize it or uncanonicalize is, it just is what it is. I have never disputed your claim that SFTM’s map of the size of Federation territory is problematic. I haven’t done the math to compare with warp speeds and sensor ranges and how frequently Class M planets would statistically occur. It just doesn’t matter to me, since to me space and spaceships and planets and aliens are all just window-dressing. Of course, the window-dressing is half the fun, but functionally we’re dealing with a 2-dimensional world that is at once both the vast oceans during the Age of Sail, and the Great American Desert of the Old West. I know to some people the science fiction is important, but to me it’s just fantasy. Regards.
|
|